Membrane Separation for Recovery of Umami Compounds ... 1/Membrane...Emulsion Liquid Membranes (ELM) technique by Bhuvaneswari et al. (55, 56, 57). Table 2: Umami Fraction of Membranes

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques 2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages: 390-402

390

Membrane Separation for Recovery of Umami

Compounds: Review of Current and Recently

Developed Membranes

Purwayantie S1*, Sediawan W.B2

1 Food Science and Technology Department; Tanjungpura University, Pontianak, Indonesia 2 Chemical Engineering Department; Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Received: 22/08/2019 Accepted: 19/12/2019 Published: 20/02/2020

Abstract The goal of this review was to determine the right membrane materials that were the current test to recovery of umami compounds

as guidance for the future. Despite the fact that umami characteristic can influence effect too, the right membrane materials are still

needed to understand to avoid increase resulting in fouling during membrane processes or better control of membrane fouling. The

results from this study showed for the last 20 years of 18 articles suggested that the major of membrane materials to separate umami

compounds which are in hydrolyzed of protein or peptides or as a free amino acid such as glutamic, aspartic or glycine still used

conventional pressure-driven filtration membrane. The membrane materials were used such as PES, polyamide and cellulose acetate.

We discuss the three membrane materials. The study concludes that membrane materials such as thin-film composite polyamide (PA-

TFC) have been promising to the recovery of umami compounds.

Keywords: Umami, Membrane materials, PES, Polyamide, CA

1 Introduction1 Membrane technology is one of the future separation

methods in which technologies are predicted to be used in

industries worldwide. The membrane can replace conventional

chemical treatments and also clarifiers using heavy equipment

that leads to high operating costs and associated with

environmental problems. Even though it cannot completely

replace conventional treatment technologies and be a stand-

alone treatment option (1). Now many techniques of

membrane separation have been developed from conventional

to modern; pressure-driven, electrodialysis or liquid

membranes could be combined.

One of the varieties of membrane separation techniques

can be characterized by their membrane pore size (2).

Generally, membranes use the principle of molecular size and

pore size distribution to separate different materials even (3)

other factors also play a role such as electrostatic, molecular

or chemical properties of the sample (4).

Recently, membrane technology was used for water

purification and waste management. The special membrane is

typically used to obtain pure water. Generally, commercially

available membranes for pure water were CTA (cellulose

Corresponding author: S Purwayantie, Food Science and

Technology Department; Tanjungpura University, Pontianak,

Indonesia, E-mail: [email protected].

triacetate) or CA (cellulose acetate) or derivate, using reverse

osmosis technique (5, 6). With technology development in

membrane materials, Connell et al. reported that PVDF

(polyvinylidene difluoride) membranes for MF

(microfiltration) were the best option on the market in 2017 to

treat raw water and mine wastewater (7).

So far, the technology was widely used to recovery

nutrition or phytochemicals including condensed milk (8),

milk protein separation (9), juice clarification and

concentration (10, 11), concentration of whey protein (12),

color (13), sugar and polyphenols recovery (14, 15) metals (16,

17). Of course, the membrane-type used for nutrition or

phytochemicals are different than that for pure water.

The separation of chemical compounds for different

applications has become an important industrial operation.

Considerable progress continues to be made in membrane

technology, and newer applications for existing systems are

being discovered as the trend is to create integrated systems

that utilize several different types of the membrane within a

process. Aware of the fact that membrane separations have

great potential, many scientists are dealing with their

Journal weblink: ttp://www.jett.dormaj.com

J. Environ. Treat. Tech.

ISSN: 2309-1185

http://www.jett.dormaj.com/


391

adjustment to the requirements such as flavor enhancer-

industry and pharmaceuticals.

This review will discuss and focus just only on membrane

materials type selection which scientifically proven based on

current studies and research to recovery nutrition and

phytochemicals from natural resources such as umami (flavor

enhancer) compounds. Umami contained chemical

compounds that the major contribution to food palatability (18,

19, 20). Flavor enhancer industry, particularly in the form of

the MSG (monosodium glutamate) was growing so fast

especially in East Asia (Japan, China, Taiwan, South Korea)

and Indonesia (U.S. International Trade Commission, 2013; ).

However, the glutamic acid production in the industry still

used the conventional manufacture, thus it has not been yet

used membrane processes separation in the purification stage

(21). Until now, publications about membrane separation of

umami compounds are still less discussed. The industrials used

membrane technology were fixed and existed, such as the

sugar industry (22) and dairy industry (23), but the membrane

which compatible with umami compounds is still being

discovered and proved by research. To obtain the fixed

membranes it is still needed a review of the literature in a

thesis, dissertation or research paper as a short guide.

The main objectives of this review focus on obtaining the

type of membrane materials which can be used to separation

of umami compounds from foods or by-products. This is an

early review of membrane processes separation of umami

compounds. Moreover, studies that led to the development of

novel raw materials to umami production are still needed.

Dates syrups and cassava starch have been reported to produce

glutamic acid by Ahmed et al. and Nampoothiri & Pandey

(24,25) Albertisia papuana Becc. leaves have been reported

of rich in umami compounds (26). Other raw materials such as

tea leaves (27) are rich in umami also by-products from wheat

(28) could be utilized for glutamate productions too. It is

important to be aware of the fact that there is trend sugarcane

production mainly in Java, Indonesia (Directorate General of

Estate Crops-Ministry of Agriculture-Republic of Indonesia,

2016) in which molasses (by-product) is the only raw material

of MSG production.

In membrane separation processes, fouling is a major

problem (29). Factors affecting membrane fouling were

membrane properties including membrane materials and

surface pore size (11). Moreover, the choice of the membrane

depends on the application objective, however commonly used

membranes are commercially available. This review was

performed to evaluate the disadvantage and advantages of

membrane materials to recovery umami in the proposed

scheme or to improve the membrane separation technique that

was done.

2 Material and Methods Literature review using a research article conducted in any

part of the world from 1987 to 2017. The search terms

membranes separation, microfiltration, ultrafiltration,

nanofiltration was separately integrated with the savory,

umami, flavor enhancer, glutamate or glutamic acid, aspartate

or aspartic acid, amino acid polar, nucleotides, hydrolyzed of

protein, peptides. All authors analyzed the current state on

material membranes specification profiles and evaluation to

umami separation. A narrative summary of the results is

presented.

2.1 Overview of Umami

Generally, umami well known as a flavor enhancer was

used in seasoning mainly in Asia in MSG form. Umami was

the fifth basic taste in human which feel as savory, brothy and

meaty (18). The main chemical compounds contributed to

umami were glutamic acid, although a lot of chemical

compounds were in synergy, such as 5’-nucleotides mainly

IMP, GMP and AMP (30,31,32). Purwayantie et al. have

proved that in Albertisia papuana Becc (26). contains the 5’-

nucleotides. In addition, it is has been proved by Chaudhari et

al., that one of the receptors for umami in humans

(T1R1+T1R3) is activated by a broad range of amino acids and

displays as a strongly potentiated response in the presence of

nucleotides (30). The fact in MSG production (commercially),

1% of 5’-nucleotides were added (survey in 2011 on MSG

Factory, Mojokerto, East of Java, Indonesia, unpublished).

Another amino acid showing similar behavior to glutamic

properties was aspartic acid, both of MSG-like compounds.

Yamaguchi et al. reported, the characteristic of aspartic acid

possesses only 7% of the efficacy of MSG (100% umami

level) (33).

Table 1: The Properties of Amino Acid Based Umami Compounds

Properties/

amino acid

glutamic acid

(MSG-like)

aspartic acid

(MSG-like)

Glycine

(sweet)

Serine

(sweet)

Threonine

(sweet)

Alanine

(sweet)

MW (Dalton) 129.12*

147**

114.11*

133**

57.05*

75**

87.08*

105**

101.11*

119**

71.09*

89**

Solubility (pH): pK1

pK2

pKR

2.19

9.67

4.25

1.88

9.60

3.65

3.24

9.60

-

2.21

9.15

-

2.09

9.10

-

2.34

9.69

- polarity polar polar Non polar Polar polar Non polar

charge negative negative neutral Neutral neutral neutral

Side chains COOH-group COOH-group - OH-group OH- group - Bonding form Salt bridge Salt bridge H-bond H-bond

Vol. classes

(Ao)

138-154

(medium)

108-117

(small)

60-90

(very small)

60-90

(very small)

108-117

(small)

60-90

(very small)

Source: Nelson et al. (70)

*data obtained from mas spectrum analysis https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~cis535/.../GCB535HW6b.pdf

** https://www.genomics.agilent.com/files/Mobio/Amino%20Acids_Abbrv_MolWeight_Classifications_2pgs.pdf

https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~cis535/.../GCB535HW6b.pdf

https://www.genomics.agilent.com/files/Mobio/Amino%20Acids_Abbrv_MolWeight_Classifications_2pgs.pdf


392

Based on molecular and functional points of view both of

them have a similarity of non-essential amino acids (34) and

neurotransmitters. Glutamate and aspartate were the two

neurotransmitters in the central nervous system (CNS) of the

brain (35,36), but Herring et al. explained that the aspartate has

not been an excitatory neurotransmitter, just the only

glutamate was prominent (37).

The solubility of both amino acids is very effected by pH.

The pKa values of glutamic and aspartic at acid pH (a carboxyl

group), are of 2.19 and 1.88, at base pH (an-ammonium ion)

are of 9.67 and 9.60, at side chain group pH are of 4.25 and

3.65, meanwhile the pI (isoelectric point) occurs at pH of 3.22

and 2.77 (34). Thus, both amino acids were very polar and

more acidic than other amino acids. Other umami compounds

were glycine, threonine, and serin, also contribute to umami

benefit in which they act modulator on the glutamic receptor

of umami taste (38, 39, 40). The characteristics of umami

compounds are presented in Table 1.

Membrane separation of amino acids has been started

since 1980, include glutamic acid. The majority of these work

aims to recover savory fraction that umami-rich such as

peptides. On the other hand, most of umami-rich foods linked

with high protein foods or fermented foods (41) such as

fermented fish (42) fermented mung bean (43), soy sauce (44),

fermented shrimp products in Southeast Asia (45), cheese (46),

fermented meats (47), wine (48), sake (49), fermentation of

MSG production (50). During fermentation, processes

proteolysis or autolysis occurs that generates the predominant

tastants of amino acids. Zhao et al. and Y. Zhang et al.

explained, the major contribution of taste-active of fermented

foods was glutamate, amino acid derivate, and peptides

(51,52). Peptides particularly impart umami taste such as α-

glutamyl peptides especially pyrutamyl-Pro-X peptides which

also produced by pGlu cyclase. Moreover, a number of

bioactive peptides find their potential applications in the food

or pharmaceutical industry (53, 54).

3 Result By research methods, we find of 18 research articles in

past 20 yr (Table 2) The finding showed and proved about

umami separation such as savory fraction, protein hydrolyzed

or peptides, the free amino acid (glutamate, aspartate,

glutathione, glycine, glutamine) can separate by using

membrane filtration. There is three of membrane separation

technology for a long time, majority using pressure-driven

conventional membrane filtration processes; only two using

the technique of Electro Membrane Process or electrodialysis

(EMP) by M. Kumar et al. and Doyen et al. and only one using

Emulsion Liquid Membranes (ELM) technique by

Bhuvaneswari et al. (55, 56, 57).

Table 2: Umami Fraction of Membranes Separation Reported

Objectives

Membrane Separation Technic Findings

Selective membranes filtration integrated into a

pilot process to obtain the hydrolyzed of spent brewer’s yeast (peptides) with different MW and

with improving the chemical and nutritional

Amorim et al. (58)

Methods: UF and NF

Type of membrane: UF (Hydranautics model 3838-30; MWCO

10kDa; Lenntech)

NF (PTI; Advanced Filtration, NF 3838/30-FF; MWCO 3kDa

Filtration area: UF 7.4m2 and NF 6.9m2

The nutrition obtained: 1. Protein and sugar (30-69%) and

20-48%

2. The major minerals: Na and K 3. The freest amino acids:

glutamate, glutamine, and alanine

4. Peptides profiles: hydrophilic and hydrophobic usually associated with

biological activities

Recover savory fraction of fermented mung bean

from two autolysate (Rhizopus and Aspergillus) (43)

Methods: diafiltration-nanofiltration (DF-

NF), continuous mode. Membrane separation/pressure-driven

operations: MF of 0.2 µm and NF 45PE

(MWCO 300Da; Dow Film Tech, USA) Membrane modules: sheet (plate and frame)

diameter 20 cm, effective

area of 0,036 m2

Membrane processes: pump motor frequency

of 20 Hz (flow rate 7.5L/minute), 23-25oC; 20bar, Pre-filter in 200 µm filter

DF-NF method on autolysate of

Rhizopus/Aspergillus was able to reduce salt at dial volume 0.2 with a resulted

composition of concentration of salt 0 and

0.14%, glutamic acid (total protein) 0.64

and 0.32%

Separation taste compounds of Albertisia papuana

Becc. leaves extract (26)

Methods: stepwise filtration (MF-UF-NF)

Type of membrane:

MF (PES)

UF (PES; MWCO 10kDa, 5kDa; Nadire, Germany)

NF (PES; MWCO 4Da; Nadire, Germany)

NF (PES; MWCO 1kDa; Sartorius, Germany System membrane: dead end

Membrane modules: plate and frame

Diameter: 47 mm in diameter

No glutamic acid showed in HPLC analysis when filtration conducted at pH

8.0 (Tris HCL buffer as a solvent)


393

Objectives


Green process of glutamic acid production (59)

Methods: membrane integrated hybrid

reactor system Type of membrane: NF (polyamide; Sepro

Co. (USA)

Membrane modules: flat sheet, cross flow

High selectivity by using NF helped

achieve over 97% product purity of glutamic acid without any need for pH 5

adjustment in a fully membrane-integrated

fermentation process

Objectives Membrane Separation Technic Findings

A pilot plant test on the desalination of soy sauce

by nanofiltration (60)

Methods: nanofiltration with pretreatment:

UF

Type of membrane: NF270-4040 (polyamide thin film composite (Dow Filmtech) and

Desal-5 DK-4040 (GE Osmonics)

Membrane modules: UF tubular modules

and NF spiral wound modules (cross flow)

The membrane of NF270 the most suitable for desalination of soy sauce

Glutamic and aspartic acid had the highest

retention by NF270

To compare the impact of PES and CA

materials on peptides selective migration from snow crab by-product hydrolysate (57)

Methods: Electrodialysis with Ultrafiltration

Membranes (EDUF)

Type of membrane: UF PES MWCO of

20kDa (GE, France) and CA (Spectrum Laboratories Inc., Rancho Dominguez, CA).

1. The most abundant population

in a compartment located near the anode for the recovery of anionic/acid peptide

fractions and near the cathode for the

recovery of cationic/basic peptide fractions were peptides with MWCO ranging from

300 to 700 Da.

2. Peptides with MWCO ranging from 700 to 900Da did not migrate during

the EDUF treatment.

3. The recovery of high MWCO (900-20000Da) in compartments located

near the anode and cathode only from CA. 4. Peptides desorbed from PES

and CA UFM after 6h of EDUF separation

had low MWCO and belonged mainly to the 600-700 Da

Amino acid (glutamate and lysine) separation (56)

Methods: electro-membrane processes

(EMP) Type of membrane: PES

The separation of GLU–LYS mixture was

possible at pH 8.0 and 85% recovery of glutamic acid.

Nanofiltration of concentrated amino acid solution

(diprotic amino acid: glycine and glutamine) (61)

Methods: UF and NF

Tight UF and commercial polymeric NF Type of membrane:

DK (NF 150-300Da; GE (G-5) (UF

1000Da), GH (G-10) (UF 2.5 kDa), NP030 (NF permanently hydrophilic PES 150-

300Da, NP010 (NF (NF permanently

hydrophilic PES 1kDa) Membrane modules: plate and frame;

effective surface membrane area 350cm2

1. Higher rejection and flux drop

over the concentration was observed in alkaline, where the amino acid is present

in dissociated form.

2. At low concentration (< 0.2 mol/L) higher rejection for charged.amino

acids and more stresses decrease in flux

with increasing concentration occurs for negatively charged amino acids

3. At higher concentration, lower

rejection for anionic amino acids

Objectives Membrane Separation Technic Findings

The impact of a two-step UF/NF to produce fractionation of fish hydrolysate on two industrial

process (62)

Methods: UF and NF

Type of membrane:

UF (ESP04; modified PES; MWCO 4kDa) NF (PA coated on PES); AFC40NF

(Polyamide film; MWCO 3Da)

Membrane modules: tubular membranes, diameter 12 mm, surface area 0.033m2.

Spec of ESP04: pH range 1-14; max temperature 65oC; max pressure 30 bar;

hydrophilicity relative low (PCI Membrane).

Spec of AFC40NF: pH range 1.5-9.5; max temperature 60oC; max pressure 60 bar;

apparent retention character 60% CaCl2;

hydrophilicity relative high (PCI membrane)

The UF fractionation produces a permeate

enriched with respect to the FPH smaller

than a molecular weight of about 600–750 Dalton, and a retentate enriched in large

peptides (above the same MW). Similar

behavior is found for the NF fractionation


394

Objectives


Isolate of umami or savory taste of soy sauce (63)

Methods: step wise of UF (MWCO 10kDa;

3kDa; 5Da)

Spec of the membrane: unpublished

Umami and sweet taste-free amino acids

and sodium salt are the key compounds of

the intense savory taste

Concentration and purification peptide hydrolysates of fish on UF and NF (64)

Methods: UF and NF

Type of membrane: UF (MT68; PS, MWCO 8 kDa; PCI)

UF (MTP04; modified PES, MWCO 4kDa;

PCI) NF (MT04; polyamide/PES, MWCO 300Da

Membrane modules: tubular Spec of the membrane: surface area of 0.033

m2 surface area of 0.033 m2

NF (polyamide/PES, MWCO 300Da) was

good for both fluxes and recovery rates to

peptides concentration.

Comparative Evaluation of Ultrafiltration

Membranes for Purification of Synthetic Peptides

(65)

Method: UF (Diafiltration in a cross-flow thin-channel device)

Type of membranes: Eight polymer materials membranes with MWCO ranging

from 500 to 800 Da

1. Aliphatic alcohol (Zenon Environmental Inc., Burlington, Ontario,

Canada)

2. CA (DDS, Nakskov, Denmark); Osmonics Inc. (Minnetonka, Minnesota),

Amicon Corp. (Danvers, Massachusetts) and

Millipore Corp. (Bed ford, Massachusetts) 3. Regenerated cellulose disks

(Amicon and Spectrum Medical Industries

(Los Angeles, California) 4. PES

5. PS (Dr. C. Bouchard, Dept. of

Chemical Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada)

6. Modified PS flat sheets

(proprietary modification) came from Bio-Recovery Inc., Northvale, New Jersey.

7. Fluoropolymer

8. Teflon

Membrane modules: plate and frame

Spec of membrane: 90 mm diameter disks (effective membrane area = 40 cm2)

The cellulosic membranes proved to be successful and reliable for the purification

of synthetic peptides (hexapeptide (MW

844); insulin (MW 5730). and cytochrome c (MW 12,384) in 5% acetic acid

Amino acid separation of a hydrolysate of Lumbricus rubellus protein

Method: NF

Type of membranes: NF (MWCO 1kDa);

Millipore, USA

The membrane was cleaned with NaOH

0,1N

Membrane modules: plate and frame (cross flow)

The best condition for amino acid filtration

was obtained on 9 psi, concentration 1 g/L,

with amino acid rejection 27-30%

Separation of glutathione and its related amino

acids by nanofiltration (66)

Method: NF with pretreatment of MF CA

0.45µm

Type of membranes: NTR-7450 (PES,

MWCO 1kDa); Nitto Electric Industrial Co. The diameter of the membrane 4.3 cm

Membrane modules: dead end

1. NTR-7450 rejected of the

electrolytes corresponded to the ratio of their anionic species varying with pH

2. At pH 7.4, glutamic acid

rejected almost 100%. 3. In the presence of divalent

metal ions, the rejection of glutamic

decreased with increasing the concentration of the metal.

Glutamic acid separation by extraction membrane

(55)

Method: emulsion liquid membrane

Solvent: kerosene

Carrier: oleic acid

Using emulsifier tri-ethanol amine to

separate glutamic acid more feasible than

using HCL and Indian glycol with


395

Objectives


condition processes M/E ratio of 0.25 at

150 rpm, external phase pH of 4.0 obtained maximum solute recovery of

63.5%

Glutamine separation from broth fermentation (67)

Method: NF

Type of membranes: NTR7450 Spec NTR7450: PES, MWCO 600-800 Da,

pH range 1-12; temperatures up to 90oC;

max 50bar (Nitto Electric Industrial Co., Japan)

The separation selectivity of Glutamin and glutamic acid was affected greatly by the

pH, transmembrane pressure and broth

concentration.

Separation of peptides and amino acid with nanofiltration membranes (68)

Method: NF

Type of membranes: NF-40 (Film Tech

Corporation); Desal-5 (Desalination

systems); G-20 (UF; Thin film; MWCO 3500 Da; Desalination systems; GE

Osmonics (USA); NTR-7450 (PES; MWCO

600-800 Da; Nitto Electric Industrial Co., Japan); UTC20 and UTC60 (Toray

Industries)

Separation of amino acids and peptides

was suitable on NF NTR-7450 and G-20

(MWCO 2000-3000Da) but the charged amino acids and peptides were rejected

meanwhile peptides and the neutral amino

acids permeated through the membranes

Separation of racemic glutamic using cellulose

acetate (69)

Method: molecular imprinting technique

Type of membranes: CA

The molecularly imprinted CA membranes

are applicable to separate between D-glutamic and L-glutamic

Concentration and separation of aspartic acid and

phenylalanine in an organic solvent (70)

Method: NF

Type of membranes: CA (NTR-1698; Nitto

Denko Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), PA-

PPSO (Toray Industries, Inc., Tokyo, Japan), polyamide composite (PI-COM; NTGS-

2100; Nitto Denko Corporation, Tokyo,

Japan)

Membrane module: dead-end ((with a

diameter of 7.5 cm and an exposed surface area of 32 cm')

Membrane process: operated at 40°C; 500

rpm by a magnetic stirrer.

The PA-PPSO membrane with methanol

as solvent appeared the most promising to separate aspartic acid meanwhile CA

suitable too but the stability was very poor.

The concentration of amino acid (71)

Method: liquid emulsion membrane

A precursor of lubricant (S-GONR) was

used as an organic solvent, DBEHPA as a

carrier, and Paradox 100 as a surfactant. A 1.5 M H2SO4, a solution was used as an

internal aqueous phase.

Recovery of glutamic acid from the fermentation

broth (72)

Method: UF, DF (diafiltration) and RO

Alat: module-20 UFlRO unit (De Dnaske Sukkerfabrikker (DDS) (Copenhagen,

Denmark)

Type of membranes: UF (DDS GRIOPP;

MWCO 500kDa RO (DDS HR-98);

Membrane processes: 0.576 m2 of membrane area, were used for UF and DF;

0.144 m2 of membrane area, were used for RO. cutoff of 500,000 Da was used for UF

and DF. The recommended maximum

operating pressure and temperature for the membrane were 10 bar and 8O” C,

respectively. The pressure and temperature

limits for the RO membrane were 80 bar and 8O” C

Separation of glutamic acid from bacterial

cells by membrane processing could

improve the efficiencies of subsequent evaporation and crystallization processes

Generally, it is not all of the stages in pressure-driven

conventional membrane filtration processes was done such as

MF first, following by UF and NF, including pore size too,

from large to small ones. In fact, by author experience who is

worked in membrane filtration in 7 past yr, it has to be done to

all of the stage processes, especially the sample test came from

the crude extract of plants. If not done, it will cause an increase

in fouling seriously, so that it will need more membranes, even


396

more, if done without cleaning membrane processes, will

impact to high costs. The stage of pre-treatment has to done

too such as clarification in couple days at lower temperatures

or by high-speed centrifuges. Some articles state that MF or

UF as a pre-treatment (60,66). We think all of the pre-

treatment for the same aims to remove total dissolved solids

(TDS) which can affect the effectiveness of membrane used.

Based on Table 2 too, this review only analyzed three

kinds of majority membrane materials, a natural polymer such

as CA; synthetic membranes as a PES and polyamide-based

membranes to the recovery of umami compounds. The

membranes present some differences in their performance and

structures.

4 Discussion The membrane materials that using to obtain umami

compounds at the MF stage can be from PES (26) or CA (66)

with a pore size of 0.2 µm in (43). At the UF stage, the majority

of membrane material was PES (20, 78) or by modified PES

(62, 64). In fact, in comparison to other membrane materials

such as CA, regenerated cellulose, PCS, PES, modified PS,

fluoropolymer and Teflon, the best to obtain the purified

peptides were cellulosic-based membrane material (65). The

Cellulose acetate membrane including produces a lot of

peptides which has a molecular weight range 600 to 700

Dalton and 900-20,000 Da when compared with PES (57).

There are three articles using diafiltration (43, 72, 73). This

technique as a conventional process to achieve high

purification of macro solutes with an economically acceptable

flux. Diafiltration in Limayem et al. mean adding continuously

pure water to feed volume to make constant (44). Paulen et al.,

explained that between UF and DF were different techniques

and generally (74), UF often combined with DF (75, 35). The

last one in NF stage majority were used polyamide-base

membrane (26, 59, 60, 61, 62, 70, 76, 78).

4.1 PES (Polyether Sulphone) Membrane

This material has become the most popular membrane

for MF, UF or NF stage. Almost of membrane researchers said

that the PES membrane is good mechanical strength, excellent

thermal and pH stabilities, high flux and reasonable cost

compared to the other membrane materials. Unfortunately,

almost of the research reported that higher rejection of amino

acid (especially of negatively charged) such as umami

compounds; glutamic acid, aspartic acid or peptides which

umami-rich by using PES (26, 60, 66, 76, 79).

Polyethersulfone membrane has low hydrophilic.

It is proved that even PES have excellent hydrophobicity,

it fouled more seriously. The hydrophobicity of membranes

means the lower hydrophilic properties than other membrane

materials such as polyacrylonitrile, CA, polyamide,

polyamide-imide (77). Unfortunately, PES and PS have a

problem in the fouling of polymeric membranes because of

that properties. Alsvik & Hägg also explained that the

properties between PES and PS are quite the same (80). It is

different from the length of units, PS has longer repeating units

than PES and the structure of membranes (Fig 1.).

Figure 1: a. The SEM cross-sectional structure of PES (81); b. PES (blank); c. 5,000x; d. 15,000x (82) and the structural formula of PES and PS

synthesis (81)


397

Figure 2: (a) Chemical structure of CA; (b) SEM images of pure CA and the 3D surfaces of CA (83); (c) and (d) SEM of the active surface of

CA and SEM of the porous surface of CA (17)

4.2 Cellulose Acetate Membrane

On the contrary, CA membrane properties were different

from the PES membrane. This membrane is a green polymer

that is produced from raw materials generally from plants.

Cellulose acetate or cellulose triacetate is a kind of cellulose-

based membrane which is synthesized by a reaction of natural

polymer cellulose and acetic acid (42), having properties of

higher transparency and toughness among thermoplastics (81)

and uncharge membrane properties (84). It is called xylonite

sometimes or acetylated cellulose (42). This membrane

provided high salt rejection and high fluxes at moderate

hydrostatic pressure. The structure of CA is shown in Fig. 2.

4.3 Polyamide-Based Membrane The membranes of polyamide (PA) being hydrophilic

properties material (2); the removed salt and flux effective

(85). One of PA membranes is thin-film composite polyamide

(PA-TFC) generally using at NF and has been widely applied

in many food industrial applications. Polyamide is materials of

high tensile strength, abrasion and fatigue resistance, low

friction coefficient and good toughness (86). The properties

are owing to its better combination between the flux of water

and rejection than to other asymmetric membranes. The profile

of the PA-TFC membrane consists of three different layers

made of different materials (87). However, there is two kind

polyester backing substrate, one from PES and the other from

PS. Composition of PA-TFC with PES as a polyester backing

substrate shown in Fig. 3.

a.


398

Figure 3: Schematic diagram of PA-TFC (PES) Membrane Synthesis and The Structure with the top and cross-sectional morphologies (83)

Some variant of polyamides membranes were PA-TFC on

polyester backing with a PS substrate (78); PA-TFC on

polyester backing with a PES substrate (62); aromatic

polyamide (60); polyamide polyphenylene sulfone composite;

PA-PPSO (70), etc. In accordance with the report of Nady et

al., due to intrinsic hydrophobic properties of PES (82),

relatively low surface energy and high water contact angle, the

PES membrane is vulnerable to adsorptive of fouling. Jeon et

al. were reported about the effect of membrane materials and

surface pore size on the fouling on PES (11). The fouling of

the membrane decreased sharply with increased pore size.

Biofouling was occurred on the PES membrane surface due to

the interaction between protein or microorganisms

(hydrophobic foulants) and the hydrophobic membranes itself.

The charge of the membrane such as PES can form the

electrostatic interactions between charged proteins and

charged membrane (25, 64).

The major of foulants on PES could be microbial

metabolites, bacterial cell lysis and un-metabolized

wastewater components (88), including proteins, nucleic

acids, polysaccharides and other polymers (36, 88, 89). In the

same words, Suwal et al. said too, generally the major of

foulants were protein, amino acid, and peptide (50). One of the

evidence was reported by Doyen et al., the foulants at the

surface and or into the pores of the PES were a peptide (57).

According to Luo et al. , besides that compounds, the major of

foulants could be other chemical compounds than expected

due to combined fouling, such as saccharide, organic acid,

NaCl too (60). Besides amino acid, glucose could also block

the membrane pores by adsorption, or protein adsorption takes

place on the membrane surface and due to the inherent

hydrophobic characteristics of the membrane.

Generally, one of the causes in fouling was depended on

the pH of feed. We agree with Kattan Readi et al. statements


399

that pH-change as important to electrodialysis process or

membrane filtration (90). Both methods when the separation

of amino acid, pH-changes play an important role in terms of

the efficiency of the process. Due to the zwitterionic character

of amino acids, small pH changes may result in significant

changes in the charge of the amino acids. pH effect occurs

when the separation of l-glutamine from fermentation broth

which umami-rich (glutamic acid) that reported by Li et al.,

(76). In single amino acid solution especially for glutamic acid

showed that rejection of glutamic acid increased slightly with

the rise of the pH from 4 to 9, and held at about 90% when the

pH was higher than 6. Almost all of the glutamic acid in the

solutions dissociated into monovalent anions when the pH was

higher than 6 and into bivalent anions when the pH was higher

than 11. The rejection of glutamic acid was similar to what was

expected according to the percentage of glutamic acid

monovalent anions at a pH of 6–8. Since the PES membrane

(NTR7450) pore size is larger than the Stokes radius of

glutamic acid (meanwhile glutamine which has a Stokes’

radius of 0.28 nm (91), the results indicated that the rejection

of glutamic acid was mainly governed by the charge effect

when the pH varies from 6 to 8. The glutamic acid phenomena

are different from glutamine so that the PES membrane

(NTR7450) can reject more than 90% of glutamic acid and

permit almost 85% of glutamine to pass through the membrane

when pH is adjusted to about 7. The separation selectivity of

glutamine and glutamic acid by the PES membrane as a

function of the pH. Glutamine was polar and uncharged as like

other umami compounds etc, threonine and serine, meanwhile,

glycine was nonpolar, but was different from glutamic or

aspartic of amino acid which is polar and having a negative

charge.

Gotoh et al. reported that at a pH of 7.4 conditions,

glutamic acid rejected almost 100% by using PES (66). This

membrane is negatively charged due to the fixed sulfonic

anions of the separation layer. So, the pH of a feed solution is

expected to affect the rejection of the membrane for the

amphoteric electrolytes. Kovacs & Samhaber, conclude that

higher rejection and flux drop over the concentration was

observed in higher pH range, where diprotic amino acids are

present in dissociated from (61). One of the diprotic amino

acid tests was glycine, amino acids that contribution to umami

taste (6). Purwayantie et al. reported too that when has been

done separation of taste compounds using PES membrane in

buffer Tris HCl of pH 8.0 in a crude extract of A. papuana

Becc., it has not been saw of the glutamic acid detected by

HPLC. The research conclusion Kovacs & Samhaber could

explain the phenomena of research results from Purwayantie

et al. (26, 61). The higher rejection and flux drop over the

concentration was observed in alkaline, where the amino acid

is present in dissociated form. It could happen when glutamic

acid in alkaline (pH 8.0) in dissociated form (the net charge is

-1). The fact, it is nature characteristic because severe amino

acid, protein, and peptide (especially having amino acid

negative charge residue) were umami-rich.

One of the foulants according to (92) were metals and

one of the metals as main fouling (10%) detected on membrane

autopsies was Fe (67.7%). Umami compound's behavior

especially glutamic and aspartic acid which can be complexed

with metal especially on pH alkaline was clear (28, 93). So

that, if the feed were umami-rich and contained metal ions

which separation on the PES membrane in alkaline pH, the

complexes could be blocking the pore of the membrane and

could not be through the pore of the membrane.

Besides of PES membrane, the CA membrane was used

for a long time ago (32,70). CA membrane always used to

obtained peptides fractions and protein on biomedical

application, mainly to recovery hemoglobin and BSA

including alanine of amino acid (17); bioactive peptides

fractions such as an anticancer peptide from snow crab by-

product hydrolysate (57), synthetic peptides (73), acid and

basic peptides (26). In accordance with (73) statements that

cellulose-based membranes are good compatibility with

peptides or proteins. The cellulosic membranes were proved to

be successful and reliable to the purification of peptides with

having MW 12,384Da. Interestingly reported by Yoshikawa et

al., that glutamic acid from racemic amino acids could be

separated (resolution) by using the CA membrane (32). It

means that the glutamic suitable separated using CA.

Jeon et al. reported that the hydrophilic CA membranes to

have a lower fouling potential than other hydrophobic

membranes (e.g., PES) (11). The air contact angles of CA and

PES were 121° and 115°, respectively. Thus, the

hydrophobicities of the materials increase in the order CA >

PES. So, hydrophilic membrane materials are preferable for

reducing membrane fouling. Sun et al., indicating that the

foulant in the CA membrane when separated protein staining

dyes and BSA, only smaller aggregates protein formation (94).

When using DLS (dynamic light scattering) test, a large

protein aggregate was confirmed but using SEC filtration and

native-PGE analyses showed BSA dimmer did not play in the

fouling. It is clear that CA was not significant fouling by

protein. The fouling occurs in the isoelectric pH of BSA (4.8).

The BSA and the small aggregates being uncharged, would

have the highest tendency to reversibly associated with more

strongly held foulant. When in pH 6.9 the foulant easily is

removed. It is indicating that the foulant in the CA membrane

was pH-dependent too, but no report that one of the foulants

on CA was umami compounds. The conclusions, the

hydrophilic of CA showed good mitigation of membrane

fouling and the membrane pore size had no significant effect

on fouling mitigation.

Compared by polyamide-base membranes that are being

reported commonly used for RO (95) especially to obtain pure

water (96) showed umami productivity better used than

cellulose-based membranes. (70) have been done

concentration and separation aspartic acid using PA-PPSO

composite compared with CA membranes. The results

conclude that the PA-PPSO membranes combined with

methanol are the most performance of membrane separation.

It is proved too by Vikramachakravarthi et al., who has been

obtained the umami compounds as glutamic acid achieved

over 90% by using PA-TFC (PS) (78). The result of glutamic

acid in Vikramachakravarthi et al. was 0.95g/g compared with

the result of amino Nitrogen by Lou was 0.008g/ml by using

aromatic polyamide membranes (60, 78). Glutamic acid is one

of the amino nitrogen. Reported by Bourseau et al., (62) that

PA-TFC (PES) still forming fouling while membrane cut off

(MWCO) is well affected to obtain fish protein hydrolysates.

In line with PA-TFC (PES) to purification blue whiting of fish


400

peptide hydrolysates using a membrane having MWCO 300Da

(60) while MWCO 4000-8000 to fractionating and MWCO

20kDa to the recovery of non-hydrolyzed protein and enzymes

(59).

5 Conclusion and Outlook In 20 past years, still, the majority using pressure-driven

conventional membrane filtration as a green process of umami

production. The processes were done with a combination of

stage pre-treatment (clarification or centrifugation) with

stepwise MF-UF/DF-NF. The material was used for years was

PES but generally was high rejected for umami compounds

(glutamic, aspartic acid, peptides rich umami). It means that

the umami compounds could be as a foulants adsorption in the

membrane. The pH effect could be trigger building a form of

fouling on PES was clear. The effect of pH can trigger

interaction between umami compounds that having some

functional groups with metals too. Their anions of glutamic

acid, other amino acids or derivatives are versatile ligands, and

the leading idea to protect the N- or C-terminus of amino acids

by metal ions or by metal complexes (55). Although PES can

be considered as a model membrane material, it is widely used

for commercial MF and UF (97). Now, PES is extensively

used for special applications when protein adsorption is not a

significant problem (73). In contrast, the CA membrane still

rarely uses separation in umami, still focuses on peptides

separation with high of WM. Although any foulants on the CA

membrane are pH-dependent too, the future need for

evaluation or autopsy studies varying of the cellulose-based

membrane. However today, the polyamide-based membranes

have been used to replace of CA membrane. We conclude that

the suitable to obtain the umami compounds was PA-TFC but

the variant of polyamide could affect the productivity of

chemical compounds from membrane processes with

especially using the suitable MWCO of membrane.

6 Acknowledgments This financial was supported by The Ministry of Research,

Technology and the Higher Education Republic of Indonesia,

Special Programme for Grand Research of Postdoctoral 2018,

with contract number research 943/UN.22.10/PP/2019 in

March of 2019.

References 1. Mortazavi, S. (2007). Application of Membrane Separation

Technology to Mining Processes. 14th Annual BC/MEND ML/ARD Workshop. Ottawa, Ontario, June 22. http://bc-

mlard.ca/files/presentations/2007-21-MORTAZAVI-application-

membrane-separation.pdf. 2. Sirvain MA, Dalex M. Accurate measuring of membrane pore

size distributions. Filtration & Separation. 2015; 52(6):14-7.

3. Beck W. Metal complexes of biologically important ligands, CLXXII [1]. metal ions and metal complexes as protective groups

of amino acids and peptides–reactions at coordinated amino acids.

Zeitschrift für Naturforschung B. 2009 Dec 1;64(11-12):1221-45. 4. Munir A. Dead end membrane filtration. Laboratory Feasibility

Studies in Environmental Engineering. 2006:1-33.

5. Kaiser A, Stark WJ, Grass RN. Rapid production of a porous cellulose acetate membrane for water filtration using readily

available chemicals. Journal of chemical education. 2017 Mar

30;94(4):483-7.

6. Li G, Li XM, He T, Jiang B, Gao C. Cellulose triacetate forward

osmosis membranes: preparation and characterization. Desalination and water treatment. 2013 Mar 1;51(13-15):2656-

65. 7. Connell P.O, Water P, Lilley T, Corporation P. Important

Characteristics of Membranes for Reliable Water and Wastewater

Processes for Discharge and Re-use. Mine Water and Circular Economy,2017; 396–402.

8. EPRI. Membrane Separation in Food Processing. Tech

Application,1991;3:1–2. 9. Omont S, Froelich D, Gésan Guiziou G, Rabiller-Baudry M,

Thueux F, Beudon D, Tregret L, Buson C, Auffret D. Comparison

of milk protein separation processes by life cycle analysis: chromatography vs filtration. In(44) 2012.

10. Ghosh P, RANA S, KUMAR S, PRADHAN R, Mishra S.

Membrane filtration of fruit juice–An emerging technology. Int. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2015;4:47-57.

11. Jeon S, Rajabzadeh S, Okamura R, Ishigami T, Hasegawa S, Kato

N, Matsuyama H. The effect of membrane material and surface pore size on the fouling properties of submerged membranes.

Water. 2016 Dec;8(12):602.

12. Kukučka MĐ, Kukučka NM. Investigation of whey protein concentration by ultrafiltration elements designed for water

treatment. Hemijska industrija. 2013;67(5):835-42.

13. Giwa A, Ogunribido A. The Applications of Membrane Operations in the Textile Industry: A Review. British Journal of

Applied Science & Technology, 2012;2(3):296–310.

https://doi.org/10.9734/bjast/2012/1520. 14. Aminzadeh R. Recovery of Sugar Compounds from Molasses via

Membrane Separation, 2014. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264900000_Recovery_of_Sugar_Compounds_from_Molasses_via_Membrane_Separati

on.

15. Wei DS, Hossain M, Saleh ZS. Separation of polyphenolics and

sugar by ultrafiltration: Effects of operating conditions on fouling

and diafiltration. International Journal of Chemical and

Biomolecular Engineering. 2008;1(1):14-23. 16. Gunatilake SK. Methods of removing heavy metals from

industrial wastewater. Methods. 2015 Nov;1(1):14.

17. Wang X, Zhou K, Ma Z, Lu X, Wang L, Wang Z, Gao X. Preparation and characterization of novel polyvinylidene

fluoride/2-aminobenzothiazole modified ultrafiltration membrane

for the removal of Cr (VI) in wastewater. Polymers. 2018 Jan;10(1):19.

18. Wei DS, Hossain M, Saleh ZS. Separation of polyphenolics and

sugar by ultrafiltration: Effects of operating conditions on fouling and diafiltration. International Journal of Chemical and

Biomolecular Engineering. 2008;1(1).

19. McCabe C, Rolls ET. Umami: a delicious flavor formed by convergence of taste and olfactory pathways in the human brain.

European Journal of Neuroscience. 2007 Mar;25(6):1855-64.

20. Yamaguchi S, Ninomiya K. The use and utility of glutamates as flavoring agents in food. J Nutr. 2000;130:921-6.

21. Kumar R, Vikramachakravarthi D, Pal P. Production and

purification of glutamic acid: A critical review towards process intensification. Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process

Intensification. 2014 Jul 1;81:59-71. 22. Rafik M, Qabli H, Belhamidi S, Elhannouni F, Elkhedmaoui A,

Elmidaoui,A. Membrane Separation in The Sugar Industry.

Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research,2015;7(9):653–658. Retrieved from

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-

84979473439&partnerID=40&md5=71685980001b4c817ea673fcd0900e31

23. Kumar P, Sharma N, Ranjan R, Kumar S, Bhat ZF, Jeong DK.

Perspective of membrane technology in dairy industry: A review. Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences. 2013

Sep;26(9):1347.


401

24. Ahmed YM, Khan JA, Abulnaja KA, Al-Malki AL. Production of

glutamic acid by Corynebacterium glutamicum using dates syrup as carbon source. Afr J Microbiol Res. 2013;7:2071-7.

25. Nampoothiri KM, Pandey A. Fermentation and recovery of L-glutamic acid from cassava starch hydrolysate by ion-exchange

resin column. Revista de Microbiologia. 1999 Jul;30(3):258-64.

26. Purwayantie S, Santoso U, Gardjito M, Susanto H. The Isolation of taste compounds in Bekkai lan (Albertisia papuana Becc.)

leaves extract using nanofiltration. International Food Research

Journal. 2015 Jan 1;22(1). 27. Kaneko S, Kumazawa K, Masuda H, Henze A, Hofmann T.

Molecular and sensory studies on the umami taste of Japanese

green tea. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry. 2006 Apr 5;54(7):2688-94.

28. Sari YW, Alting AC, Floris R, Sanders JP, Bruins ME. Glutamic

acid production from wheat by-products using enzymatic and acid hydrolysis. biomass and bioenergy. 2014 Aug 1;67:451-9.

29. Nguyen T, Roddick FA, Fan L. Biofouling of water treatment

membranes: a review of the underlying causes, monitoring techniques and control measures. Membranes. 2012

Dec;2(4):804-40.

30. Chaudhari N, Pereira E, Roper SD. Taste receptors for umami: the case for multiple receptors. The American journal of clinical

nutrition. 2009 Jul 1;90(3):738S-42S.

31. Kinnamon SC, Lin W, Ogura T, Ruiz C, Delay E. Downstream signaling effectors for umami taste. Chemical senses. 2005 Jan

1;30(suppl_1):i31-2.

32. Zhang F, Klebansky B, Fine RM, Xu H, Pronin A, Liu H, Tachdjian C, Li X. Molecular mechanism for the umami taste

synergism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

2008 Dec 30;105(52):20930-4. 33. Yamaguchi S, Yoshikawa T, Ikeda S, Ninomiya T. Measurement

of the relative taste intensity of some l‐α‐amino acids and 5′‐

nucleotides. Journal of Food Science. 1971 Sep;36(6):846-9.

34. Lehninger AL, Nelson DL, Cox MM, Cox MM. Lehninger

principles of biochemistry. Macmillan; 2005.

35. Lozić-Đurić M. Neurotransmitters in the central nervous system: Basic knowledge revisited. Medicinski podmladak.

2015;66(2):12-5.

36. Marmiroli P, Cavaletti G. The Glutamatergic Neurotransmission in the Central Nervous System. Current Medicinal

Chemistry,2012;19(9):1269–1276.

https://doi.org/10.2174/092986712799462711 37. Herring BE, Silm K, Edwards RH, Nicoll RA. Is aspartate an

excitatory neurotransmitter?. Journal of Neuroscience. 2015 Jul

15;35(28):10168-71. 38. Kritis AA, Stamoula EG, Paniskaki KA, Vavilis TD. Researching

glutamate–induced cytotoxicity in different cell lines: a

comparative/collective analysis/study. Frontiers in cellular neuroscience. 2015 Mar 17;9:91.

39. Smart TG, Paoletti P. Synaptic neurotransmitter-gated receptors.

Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology. 2012 Mar 1;4(3):a009662.

40. Wroblewski JT, Fadda E, Mazzetta J, Lazarewicz JW, Costa E.

Glycine and D-serine act as positive modulators of signal transduction at N-methyl-D-aspartate sensitive glutamate

receptors in cultured cerebellar granule cells. Neuropharmacology. 1989 May 1;28(5):447-52.

41. Mouritsen OG, Duelund L, Calleja G, Frøst MB. Flavour of

fermented fish, insect, game, and pea sauces: garum revisited. International journal of gastronomy and food science. 2017 Oct

1;9:16-28.

42. Suhartini W, Yang F, Xia W. Physiochemical Properties, Volatile Compounds and Sensory Evaluation of Chili Sauce Shrimp Paste

from Different Regions in Indonesia. Food and Nutrition

Sciences. 2019 Mar 4;10(3):333-48. 43. Susilowati A, Melanie H. Reducing Salt from Autolysate of

Fermented Mung Bean (Phaseolus Radiatus l.) Using

Diafiltration-nanofiltration (DF-NF) Mode for Quality

Improvement of Savory Flavor Product. Procedia Chemistry. 2015 Jan 1;16:58-65.

44. Lioe HN, Selamat J, Yasuda M. Soy sauce and its umami taste: a link from the past to current situation. Journal of Food Science.

2010 Apr;75(3):R71-6.

45. Hajeb P, Jinap S. Fermented shrimp products as source of umami in Southeast Asia. J Nutr Food Sci S. 2012;10:006.

46. Drake SL, Carunchia Whetstine ME, Drake MA, Courtney P,

Fligner K, Jenkins J, Pruitt C. Sources of umami taste in Cheddar and Swiss cheeses. Journal of food science. 2007

Aug;72(6):S360-6.

47. Dermiki M, Mounayar R, Suwankanit C, Scott J, Kennedy OB, Mottram DS, Gosney MA, Blumenthal H, Methven L.

Maximising umami taste in meat using natural ingredients: effects

on chemistry, sensory perception and hedonic liking in young and old consumers. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture.

2013 Oct;93(13):3312-21.

48. Klosse P. Umami in Wine. Research in Hospitality Management,2013;2(1–2):25–28.

https://doi.org/10.1080/22243534.2013.11828287

49. Sake J, Shochu Makers Association. A comprehensive guide to Japanese sake. Tokyo: Japan Sake and Shochu Makers

Association. 2011.

50. Tracy SE. Delicious: A History of Monosodium Glutamate and Umami, the Fifth Taste Sensation (Doctoral dissertation).

51. Zhang Y, Venkitasamy C, Pan Z, Liu W, Zhao L. Novel umami

ingredients: Umami peptides and their taste. Journal of food science. 2017 Jan;82(1):16-23.

52. Zhao CJ, Schieber A, Gänzle MG. Formation of taste-active

amino acids, amino acid derivatives and peptides in food fermentations–A review. Food Research International. 2016 Nov

1;89:39-47.

53. Davalos A, Miguel M, Bartolome B, Lopez-Fandino R.

Antioxidant activity of peptides derived from egg white proteins

by enzymatic hydrolysis. Journal of food protection. 2004

Sep;67(9):1939-44. 54. Dlask, O., & Václavíková, N. (2018). Electrodialysis with

Ultrafiltration Membranes for Peptide Separation. Chemical

Papers, 72(2), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11696-017-0293-6

55. Bhuvaneswari S, Begum S, Meera KM, Sivashanmugam P,

Anantharaman N, Sundaram S. Separation of L-glutamic acid by emulsion liquid membrane extraction.

56. Kumar M, Tripathi BP, Shahi VK. Electro‐membrane process for

the separation of amino acids by iso‐electric focusing. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology. 2010 May;85(5):648-57.

57. Doyen A, Beaulieu L, Saucier L, Pouliot Y, Bazinet L. Impact of

ultrafiltration membrane material on peptide separation from a snow crab byproduct hydrolysate by electrodialysis with

ultrafiltration membranes. Journal of agricultural and food

chemistry. 2011 Jan 21;59(5):1784-92. 58. Amorim M, Pereira JO, Gomes D, Pereira CD, Pinheiro H,

Pintado M. Nutritional ingredients from spent brewer's yeast

obtained by hydrolysis and selective membrane filtration integrated in a pilot process. Journal of food engineering. 2016

Sep 1;185:42-7. 59. Vikramachakravarthi D, Kumar R, Pal P. Production of L (+)

glutamic acid in a fully membrane-integrated hybrid reactor

system: direct and continuous production under non-neutralizing conditions. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research. 2014

Nov 24;53(49):19019-27.

60. Luo J, Huang W, Song W, Hang X, Ding L, Wan Y. A pilot-plant test on desalination of soy sauce by nanofiltration. Separation and

purification technology. 2012 Mar 22;89:217-24.

61. Kovacs Z, Samhaber W. Nanofiltration of concentrated amino acid solutions. Desalination. 2009 May 15;240(1-3):78-88.


402

62. Bourseau P, Vandanjon L, Jaouen P, Chaplain-Derouiniot M,

Massé A, Guérard F, Chabeaud A, Fouchereau-Peron M, Le Gal Y, Ravallec-Plé R, Bergé JP. Fractionation of fish protein

hydrolysates by ultrafiltration and nanofiltration: impact on peptidic populations. Desalination. 2009 Aug 1;244(1-3):303-20.

63. Lioe HN, Yasuda M. Isolation and Identification of Savory

Compounds Present in Koikuchi Shoyu-A Most Well-Known Japanese Soy Sauce, 2007 August; 3–7.

64. Vandanjon L, Johannsson R, Derouiniot M, Bourseau P, Jaouen

P. Concentration and purification of blue whiting peptide hydrolysates by membrane processes. Journal of Food

Engineering. 2007 Dec 1;83(4):581-9.

65. Mourot P, Oliver M. Comparative Evaluation of Ultrafiltration Membranes for Purification of Synthetic Peptides. Separation

Science and Technology,1986;24(5–6):353–367.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01496398908049774 66. Gotoh T, Iguchi H, Kikuchi KI. Separation of glutathione and its

related amino acids by nanofiltration. Biochemical engineering

journal. 2004 Jul 15;19(2):165-70. 67. Li SL, Li C, Liu YS, Wang XL, Cao ZA. Separation of L-

glutamine from fermentation broth by nanofiltration. Journal of

Membrane science. 2003 Sep 1;222(1-2):191-201. 68. Tsuru T, Shutou T, Nakao SI, Kimura S. Peptide and amino acid

separation with nanofiltration membranes. Separation science and

technology. 1994 May 1;29(8):971-84. 69. Yoshikawa M, Ooi T, Izumi JI. Alternative molecularly imprinted

membranes from a derivative of natural polymer, cellulose

acetate. Journal of applied polymer science. 1999 Apr 25;72(4):493-9.

70. Roh IJ, Park SY, Kim JJ, Kim CK. Effects of the polyamide

molecular structure on the performance of reverse osmosis membranes. Journal of Polymer Science Part B: Polymer Physics.

1998 Aug;36(11):1821-30.

71. Hong SA, Yang JW. Process development of amino acid

concentration by a liquid emulsion membrane technique. Journal

of membrane science. 1994 Jan 27;86(1-2):181-92.

72. Kuo WS, Chiang BH. Recovery of glutamic acid from fermentation broth by membrane processing. Journal of Food

Science. 1987 Sep;52(5):1401-4.

73. Mulyanti R, Susanto H. Wastewater Treatment by Nanofiltration Membranes. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental

Science,2018;142(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-

1315/142/1/012017 74. Peña N, Gallego S, Del Vigo F, Chesters SP. Evaluating impact

of fouling on reverse osmosis membranes performance.

Desalination and Water Treatment. 2013 Jan 1;51(4-6):958-68. 75. Limayem I, Charcosset C, Fessi H. Purification of nanoparticle

suspensions by a concentration/diafiltration process. Separation

and Purification Technology. 2004 Jul 15;38(1):1-9. 76. Liderfelt J, Royce J. Filtration Methods for Use in Purification

Processes (Concentration and Buffer Exchange).

InBiopharmaceutical Processing 2018 Jan 1 (pp. 441-453). Elsevier.

77. Reddy∗ KK, Kawakatsu T, Snape JB, Nakajima M. Membrane concentration and separation of L-aspartic acid and L-

phenylalanine derivatives in organic solvents. Separation science and technology. 1996 Apr 1;31(8):1161-78.

78. Voicu SI, Ninciuleanu CM, Muhulet O, Miculescu M. Cellulose

acetate membranes with controlled porosity and their use for the separation of aminoacids and proteins. J. Optoelectron. Adv.

Mater. 2014 Jul 1;16(7-8):903-8.

79. Upadhyay V. Studies of Cellulose Acetate Supported Ergosterol Liquid Membrane. Journal of Membrane Science & Technology,

2012;02(02):2–5. https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9589.1000116

80. Alsvik IL, Hägg MB. Pressure retarded osmosis and forward osmosis membranes: materials and methods. Polymers. 2013

Mar;5(1):303-27.

81. Abe T, Kato K, Fujioka T, Akizawa T. The blood compatibilities

of blood purification membranes and other materials developed in Japan. International journal of biomaterials. 2011;2011.

82. Zang Q, Sun BS, Zhang HF, Qi GS. Influence of extracellular polymeric substances on characteristics of membrane filtration in

a submerged membrane bioreactor. Tianjin Gongye Daxue

Xuebao/ Journal of Tianjin Polytechnic University. 2005 Oct;24(5):41-4.

83. Khorshidi B, Thundat T, Fleck BA, Sadrzadeh M. A novel

approach toward fabrication of high performance thin film composite polyamide membranes. Scientific reports. 2016 Feb

29;6:22069.

84. Van Reis R, Brake JM, Charkoudian J, Burns DB, Zydney AL. High-performance tangential flow filtration using charged

membranes. Journal of Membrane Science. 1999 Jul 1;159(1-

2):133-42. 85. Singh PS, Rao AP, Ray P, Bhattacharya A, Singh K, Saha NK,

Reddy AV. Techniques for characterization of polyamide thin

film composite membranes. Desalination. 2011 Nov 1;282:78-86. 86. Anadão P. Ciência e Tecnologia de Membranas, 2010. Retrieved

from https://www.amazon.com.br/Ciência-Tecnologia-

Membranas-Priscila-Anadão/dp/8588098504 87. Drioli E. Polyamide Membrane. In E. Drioli & L. Giorno (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of Membranes, 2016;1588–1590. Retrieved from

http://93.174.95.29/_ads/00FF884C8DF95918212D5C8E4BC5162B

88. Flemming HC, Wingender J. Relevance of microbial extracellular

polymeric substances (EPSs)-Part I: Structural and ecological aspects. Water science and technology. 2001 Mar 1;43(6):1-8.

89. Nakao S, Osada H, Kurata H, Tsuru T, Kimura S. Separation of

proteins by charged ultrafiltration membranes. Desalination. 1988 Nov 1;70(1-3):191-205.

90. Readi OK, Kuenen HJ, Zwijnenberg HJ, Nijmeijer K. Novel

membrane concept for internal pH control in electrodialysis of

amino acids using a segmented bipolar membrane (sBPM).

Journal of membrane science. 2013 Sep 15;443:219-26.

91. Shultz S, Bass M, Semiat R, Freger V. Modification of polyamide membranes by hydrophobic molecular plugs for improved boron

rejection. Journal of Membrane Science. 2018 Jan 15;546:165-72.

92. Poulin JF, Amiot J, Bazinet L. Simultaneous separation of acid and basic bioactive peptides by electrodialysis with ultrafiltration

membrane. Journal of biotechnology. 2006 May 29;123(3):314-

28. 93. Ahmed M., Qadir M. A. Synthesis of Metal Complexes with

Amino Acids for Animal Nutrition. Global Veterinaria,

2014;12(6):858–861. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.gv.2014.12.06.841

94. Suwal S, Doyen A, Bazinet L. Characterization of protein, peptide

and amino acid fouling on ion-exchange and filtration membranes: Review of current and recently developed methods.

Journal of Membrane Science. 2015 Dec 15;496:267-83.

95. Cho YH, Han J, Han S, Guiver MD, Park HB. Polyamide thin-film composite membranes based on carboxylated polysulfone

microporous support membranes for forward osmosis. Journal of

membrane science. 2013 Oct 15;445:220-7. 96. Sajadi SA. Metal ion-binding properties of L-glutamic acid and

L-aspartic acid, a comparative investigation. Natural Science. 2010 Mar 2;2(02):85.

97. Homaeigohar SS, Buhr K, Ebert K. Polyethersulfone electrospun

nanofibrous composite membrane for liquid filtration. Journal of Membrane Science. 2010 Dec 1;365(1-2):68-77.

Documents

Membrane Separation for Recovery of Umami Compounds ... 1/Membrane...Emulsion Liquid Membranes (ELM) technique by Bhuvaneswari et al. (55, 56, 57). Table 2: Umami Fraction of Membranes